Paul Hoffman wrote: >> It has to be tuned for the "or more" part of "one or more". > I can't fully parse your meaning, but I think I disagree.
Yes, I also think we disagree. I prefer one file and URL per figure, avoiding all questions of TARs / ZIPs / JARs / TGZs to bundle them. > The RFC Editor, on a case-by-case basis, can choose to have > one file containing multiple figures, or multiple files. Can we maybe agree on "one subdirectory" for these "packs" ? I'd like to have a "one-click interface" (IPR: ammazon) per figure. You mentioned GIF and PDF. Of course it's somehow possible to put more than one image in a GIF89a - after all that's how "animated GIFs" work. But it's then a pain to get at an individual image. Similar PDFs can have multiple parts, but there is no way to address individual parts in URLs. Your art-proposal is more KISS than John's PDF-proposal and therefore better, but IMO still not yet simple enough. > The important thing is that the URLs used by the RFC Editor > for any art needs to be long-lived and not tied to the > format of the artwork. Yes, but mixing my rfc5110a.svg, rfc5110b.png, etc. idea with your rfc5110.art idea is possible: rfc5110.a01, rfc5110.a02, and so on. Frank -- P.S., unrelated, John wrote about UTF-8: | I don't see any point in trying to discuss or critique such | proposals until there is one... http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/test/draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-01.txt _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
